This is an application for quashment of the proceedings of the case, "Mohammed Amin v. Yasin Khan and 4 others under section 406/420, P. P. C., pending in the Court of First Extra Joint Civil Judge & F. C. M., Hyderabad.
2 The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 is the daughter and applicants 4 and 5 are the sons of applicants 2 and.3. The respondent No. 2 is the clerk in the Office of Mr. Hatif Khudai, Advocate at Hyderabad. In 1975/76 the respondent No. 2 was the Joint Secretary of Pakistan People's Party Unit No. 9, Latifabad, Hyderabad. The applicant No. 1 Mst. Khatoon Bibi, was a teacher in those days in Government Girls Primary School Unit No. 11, Latifabad, Hyderabad. She was directed by the office of the Directorate of Education, Hyderabad, to produce a Certificate in support of her Domicile in Hyderabad, In this connection, she visited the Office of the Directorate of Education, to inquire about the procedure, how to obtain such a Certificate. In that Office, she met one Mst. Parveen, who took her to the respondent No. 2, who claimed to be an influential person, being the Joint' Secretary of Pakistan People's Party in Unit No. 9, Latifabad, Hyderabad. He asked her to sign the necessary papers and the affidavits, which she did, on 21May, 1975. Accompanied by Mst. Parveen, the applicant No. 1, had visited the house of respondent No. 2, for making inquiries about the Domicile Certificate, where she met Mst. Noor Jahan, were of the respondent No. 2.
Subsequently, on 20th August 1975 Mst. Parveen went to the school, where the applicant No. 1 was teaching and delivered her the required Domicile Certificate. After about a week Mst. Parveen again visited the applicant No. 1 in her school and asked her to come to the house of respondent No. 2, as his were Mst. Noor Jehan, wanted to meet her. When the applicant accompanied Mst.
Parveen and reached the house of respondent No. 2, no body was found present there. Mst.st Parveen went out of the house on the pretext that she will bring Mst. Noor Jehan, from the neighbourhood; but never returned. Instead, the respondent No. 2 came inside the room. It is alleged that he on the gun point, forcibly committed rape upon applicant No. 1. She was so much humiliat--ed, the manner her modesty was outraged, that due to shame and disgrace; she did not disclose the incident to any of her relatives. She disassociated herself from Mst. Parveen and avoided contacting her, as well as; respondent No. 2. A few days, thereafter, on 8th September 1975, the were of applicant No. 4 who is the brother of applicant No. 1, was abducted, with her infant child.
In spite of applications and reports, no one helped, in the recovery of the abducted woman, for which all the applicants blamed respondent No. 2, who had political influence, with the local police, being an important P. P. P. Man of the locality, who had started a campaign of vilification and harassm ent against the applicants. Due to constant harassment, at the hands of respondent No. 2.
The applicants had shifted from Hyderabad to Karachi on 23rd October 1975.
3. The respondent No. 2 having failed to win over applicant No. 1, he filed a Family Suit No. 378/76 on 20th November, 1975, to the Court of Extra Joint Civil Judge and Family Court, at Hyderabad, claiming the applicant No. 1 to be his were, and prayed for restitution of conjugal rights. He had filed Nikahnama alongwith his plaint, showing that on 25th July 1975, he was married with the applicant No. 1. This assertion stands falsified by the Domicile Certificate dated 20th August 1975, wherein she was shown as a virgin. It is admitted position that respondent No. 2 was married to Mst. Noor Jahan and had three children from the wedlock. He claims to have divorced her about 6-7 years ago. In her written statement, in the civil suit, the applicant No. 1 had denied the marriage with respondent No. 2 and had asserted that the, Nikahnama was a fake one and was falsely prepared etc. The suit has now been decreed for conjugal rights, as was prayed, against which the appeal is stated to have been filed in the District Court at Hyderabad and is pending disposal.
4. Within a week of the institution of the Civil Suit (26th November 1975), the respondent No. 2 filed a direct complaint under section 406/420, P. P. C. As a result of the P. E. The Magistrate issued process under section, 420, P. P. C., only, against ail tile applicants.
5. Finding that the applicants had not yet surrendered to the wishes of the respondent No. 2, he had filed yet another direct complaint on the identical facts on 15th April 1976 under sections 498, 380, 314, 504 and 506, P. P. C. In the same Court of the Extra Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad who took cognizance of the offence under section 380/504/506/34, P. P. C., in which one more accused, namely Shamsuddin was added as the sixth accused. Two more criminal com- -plaints were also registered by the Police, at the instance of respondent No. 2 in which proceedings under sections 107 and 117, Cr. P. C. Were instituted on 18th February 1976 and 24th April, 1976 respectively. The Magistrate of the Illaqa had issued notices to the applicants, in spite of the fact that they were no residing within the jurisdiction of that Court.
6. In addition to all these cases mentioned above, the respondent No. 2 had moved an application in the Court of A.D.M., Hyderabad under section 100, Cr. P. C. For the issue of a search warrant against applicant No. 1. As a result of search warrant, she was produced in the Court and her statement was recorded in the Court. She had denied the marriage and had stated that the respondent No. 2 had set up a false and concocted story of marriage, in order to intimidate and harass her and extort money from her parents.
7. In this application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 is continuously harassing the appli--cants and has threatened to forcibly kidnap applicant No. 1, if she does not surrender to his demands.
8. I have heard Mr. Munawar Abbas, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh for respondent No. 2 and Mr. A. K. Lakhan for the State. Since the parties are the same in both the applications, except Shamsuddin, who has been added, in the second direct complaint, filed on 15th April 1976, this judgment will dispose of both the appli--cations. I have also perused the Nikahnama, the domicile certificate, the plaint in the civil suit, the statement of the applicant Mst.
Khatoon Bibi at the time, when she was produced, as a result of the search warrant, under section 100, in the Court of A. D. M. And the direct complaint, filed by the respondent No. 2, as well as, direct complaint, in the second case, in which cognizance was taken of offences under section 380/504/506/34, P. P. C. It is strange that the allegations in respect of the same incident, where the applicant is stated to have left the respondent No. 2, taking away the property has varied in different complaints, at each stage. The facts have been obviously improved upon, from time to time. Property taken away by the applicant No I had also differed and the witnesses had likewise been added in each complaint, to support the allegations.
9. The domicile certificate Annexure `A' is earliest in time and is dated 20th August 1975. There was no question of marriage of the applicant No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 at that time. The Nikahnama Annexure 'D' has been denied by the applicant No. 1, inasmuch as, it was forged, false and fabricated. It is dated 25th July 1975, which by itself does not coincide with the contents of the domicile certificate wherein the applicant No. 1 was shown as virgin.
10. Coming to the contents of the plaint dated 20th November 1975, in the civil suit Annexure `E' paragraphs, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint read as under:-----
4. That the defendant's father came to the house of plaintiff on 29th October 1975 and took the defendant to Karachi on the pre--text that there is marriage of some relations at Karachi and that they are going to attend the same. The plaintiff raised no objection and allowed the defendant to go.
5. That the defendant is a School Teacher at Hyderabad and she took leave of four days only, but she was not returned. On inquiry from Government Primary Girls School, Unit No....Latifabad, Hyder-- abad the plaintiff learnt that the defendant has resigned from the job.
6. That the plaintiff went to Karachi and requested the defendant to accompany him, but the father of the defendants refused to send her with the plaintiff and the defendant has also refused. The father of the defendant further abused filthily and used provocative language against the plaintiff.
7, That at the time of leaving Hyderabad, the defendant and his father took away cash of Rs. 1,500 and all the gold ornaments of about 10 tolas and clothes without knowledge of the plaintiff.
On the other hand, while referring to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the direct complaint Annexure 'Q' dated 26th November 1975 it is found as under:-
4. That on 29th October 1975 in the morning the accused No. 1 to 4 came to the house of complainant and requested the complain ant to allow accused No. 5 to go to Karachi for attending marriage of some of the relations. The complainant therefore left house and went to attend his private work at Hirabad, Hyderabad, while he returned at about 16-00 hours on the same day the complainant found that all the accused have left the house with doors opened and went away to Karachi, as informed by neighbours.
5. The complainant found that the accused have dishonestly and fraudulently taken away all clothes, utensils, gold ornaments, cash of Rs. 1,500, Radio, watch, Sewing Machine, Fan (Detailed list attached). The above articles have been taken away without know--ledge of the complainant.
6. That all the above articles were in the custody of accused No. 3 and accused Nos. 1 to 4 have taken away the same with the conveni--hence of accused No. 5 fraudulently in order to cause the complainant wrongful loss. ,
7. That accused No. 5 is a School Teacher at Hyderabad and she took leave for four days only, but she has not returned. On inquiry from Government Girls Primary School Unit No. 11, Latifabad, Hyderabad, the complainant learnt that the accused No. 5 has resigned from job.
8. That the complainant went to Karachi after a week and requested the accused No. 5 to accompany him and also requested all the accused to return all the articles but the accused were refused to return the articles and accused No. 5 has even' refused to accom--pany the complainant.
9. That the complainant on return from Karachi has filed a Family Suit No. 378 of 1975 against accused No. 5 for restoration of conjugal rights in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and Family Court, Hyderabad which is pending in the above Court.
The paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the direct complaint filed on 15th April 1976 under section 380/504/506/34, P. P. C. Read as under:-
6. That on 29th October 1975 the complainant was out from the house for some domestic work to Hyderabad Town and when the complainant returned back from Hyderabad Town at about 16-00 hours found that the doors of the house of the complainant were opened. When the complainant went inside the house noticed that neither accused No. 5 (Mst. Khatoon) was there nor the belongings of the complainant such as (1) Radio, t2) Sewing Machine, (3) Table Fan, (4) Time piece (Watch) and the cash Rs. 1,500 (Rupees fifteen hundred only).
7. That complainant made inquiries from Muhala People and the neighbours of the complainant named Rehmatullah, Anwar, Noor Mohammad have disclosed the complainant that they have seen the were of the complainant and father and mother and brothers of accused No. 5 were going in a Mini Taxi and were placing their luggage in it at about 3 p.m. When they inquired from them it was stated to them that they all were going to Karachi. The complain--ant then went to police station to lodge the report. It was observe--ed that the accused persons have first associated with the Police before absconding from the house of the complainant, the complaint of the complainant was not entertained by the Police Latifabad.
8. The complainant then went to Karachi to find were and the things which were carried by her. The complainant found all the accused persons Nos. 1 to 5 in the house No. 1730/696 Balida Colony, Karachi No. 28. The complainant first talked with accused No. 1 (Yaseen Khan) the father-in-law of the complainant and asked him the reason for absconding from the house of the complainant without any information and permission and carrying the were of the com--plainant alongwith belongings of the complainant.
11. It is now manifestly clear from the recital of these facts that the respondent No. 2 had made different allegations at different stages against all the applicants, which instead of providing corroboration, contradict the facts alleged by the respondent No. 2 and falsify his statement in respect of the applicant No. 1, having left the house with the property. On perusal of the different complaints and other documents on the record I have come to the conclusion that the case against the applicants appears to be false, if allowed to continue, cannot justifiably end in their conviction--. The circumstances of the cases clearly show that the series of cases have been instituted against the applicants, in order to intimidate and harass them,
12. I would under these circumstances, quash the proceedings arising out of the direct complaint under section 406/420, P. P. C. Against the applicants at present pending in the Court of 1st Extra Joint Civil Judge and F. C. M., Hyderabad and second complaint case pending in the Court of II A. D.
M., Hyderabad under section 380/504/506/34, P. P. C. As they are clear abuse of the process of the Court.